There are two ways in which we can define marriage. The first one being the origin, and the second one is saying what marriage is not (process of elimination). I cannot express the importance of the word origin enough. It is evident in science, theology, and math. Origin is the very point of history. If the past didn’t matter, why are we forced to study history in every public high school? We see origin stressed when interpreting ancient documents. Once we find the origin of something, we realize the intentions and reason of “that something”. Take, for example, the U.S. Constitution. There are people who dedicate their whole life to interpreting the Constitution. Other people plead that the documents are active, and, over time, they evolve. (To these people, I would ask where are the boundaries, or are there any boundaries? Is anything absolute?) If you think that historical documents and their principles evolve, this blog isn’t for you, but if you think the interpretation of these documents are inherently subject to the circumstances in which they were written, well, this is for you.
So, how do we search the origin of marriage? The oldest documents of marriage date back about six millennia. However, this is scripture, so, for the people out there who see the bible as non-authoritative, I will avoid scripture. The oldest document besides scripture date back four and a half millennia. From the Mesopotamians, marriage was a divine institute as well. However, they did not serve the God of the Israelites, but they did attempt to keep marriage sacred. Like any religion, the people were not always faithful. For example, they did practice homosexuality, but it was never recognized in a martial context. Same-sex intercourse was prohibited only to pleasure. For almost five-thousand years, marriage was withheld to one man and one woman. It was not until Cicero, in the Roman era (80 B.C.), that we see same-sex couples being recognized by the public as “married”.
Allow me to say that I truly believe God instituted marriage, and he did so in such a way that it was confined to one man and one woman. (Gen. 2:24, Prov. 5:18, Prov.19:4, and Mat.19:4-6) If there is another logical explanation of the institute of marriage, I would love to hear it. Like I stated in my last blog, America recognizes some generic rules when it comes to marriage: polygamy is not accepted, beastiality is not accepted, and there are age requirements (a baby cannot marry an adult). So, why do we recognize these general marital laws? From where do they come? These are questions we must ask. If we do not know why we abide by these “rules”, then someday the rules will be voided. If there is no reason for rules, we will break them. If there is no point, why follow them. The only logical explanation I can think of is a transcendent, maximally-great being grounded these rules into individuals through the authority of scripture and his divinity. If you recognize these rules and don’t know where they came from, how can you continue to advocate them? Moreover, we have a choice; either accept the moral stipulations that come with marriage, or have no stipulations. This is not a false-dichatomy. (Where you offer only two choices, and there is a third option lingering. Also called a false-dilimea.)
So, if we recognize these guidelines as being evident through this maximally-great being, we must first realize that the same deity orchestrated marriage specifically for one man and one woman. We must also appreciate the guidelines and be thankful for a firm foundation. Furthermore, if marriage is a dynamic matrimony with one man and one woman, the phrase “same-sex marriage” carries no linguistic value. What is it? I would argue that, if we keep going down this road, in years come, Tom will be married to a cat. I know this sounds absurd, but what is hindering this process? I encourage people to find a coherent definition of marriage. If we appeal to happiness, there is no limit. Moreover, there must be criterion. If, we as a country, chase pleasure and what makes us “happy”, we are all doomed.
Now, I am not offering a definition of marriage on my own behalf, or even on the behalf of the Christian God. I am thoroughly recognizing the inconsistencies and the fallibility that we are subject to when we have no foundation whatsoever. This foundation, the maximally-great being, is much more authoritative than a society, a community, or even a specific country’s law. Our God’s character is never subject to change, never inconsistent, and, most of all, truthful. If we have no foundation, we have no structure. If we have no foundation, how do we stand? I’m stressing the importance of foundation, and explicitly showing the origin of marriage.
Once again, I mean no disrespect whatsoever to same-sex couples. Being a homosexual, in my opinion, is not sinful. What is sinful, once again, my opinion, is practicing homosexuality. Paul the Apostle was called to a life of single-hood.
Sources taken from “academia.edu”, and scripture.